In group decision-making, ignorance promotes democracy

In some cases, the presence of uninformed individuals can take control from an …

How do groups of animals make collective decisions? Last week, we learned that bees reach consensus by headbutting those with opposing views. But in many other species, the decision-making process is a bit more democratic. In cases where social animals are unrelated and have different self-interests (such as our own), contrasting opinions are common. But it can be just as common for individuals to either be uninformed about the options, or simply not care much about the decision.

Researchers have long wondered how the dynamics of decision-making work in these cases. Some evidence suggests that those who are ignorant or naïve are subject to manipulation by a loud, opinionated minority. If this is true, uninformed individuals are detrimental to democratic decision-making, since they can turn over power to a minority. However, a new study in this week's Science shows that, under certain conditions, uninformed individuals actually shift the balance toward the majority, enabling a democratic process where the majority rules.

First, the researchers created a simple computational model in which a group of virtual animals had the option of moving to one of two locations. There were few rules: virtual animals were attracted to each other and tended to travel in the same general direction. Based on these rules, the individuals acted like members of a rudimentary social group. Then, the researchers varied the number of animals that wanted to go to each location and the strength of their convictions.

In the first set of models, all the individuals had a preference for either one location or the other, with varying degrees of conviction. Not surprisingly, when the majority of animals had a strong preference to move to one location, the group moved there. Even when the majority’s preference was equal in strength to the minority’s preference, the majority won out. However, when the strength of the minority's preference was increased past a certain threshold, the minority could dictate the group’s behavior. These results suggest that an opinionated minority can win out over a majority with weaker convictions.

Things got more interesting when the researchers added animals without a preference to the model. Under these conditions, even when the minority's preference was extremely strong, the presence of the "uninformed" individuals actually returned control to the majority. The more uninformed individuals there were, the stronger this effect became (up to a point; eventually noise took over).

The researchers then used an experimental approach to ask the same questions using golden shiners, a very social species of fish known for their schooling behavior. Some fish were trained to swim to a yellow target in the tank, and some were trained to move toward a blue target. Intrinsically, the fish preferred the yellow target—even after training, their preference for the yellow target was stronger than their preference for the blue target. This created an natural way to test the researchers’ theories.

The results from these lab tests mirrored the findings of the computational model. When the minority of fish in the tank were those trained to go to the yellow target (meaning they had a strong preference for the option), they won out and the group went there. When untrained fish were introduced into the tank, however, the majority regained control, even though their preference for the blue target was weaker. When the majority of the fish in the tank were trained to go to the yellow target, the presence of untrained fish had no effect.

Under these conditions, the presence of ignorant or naïve individuals actually tends to lessen the influence of a strongly-opinionated minority. Clearly, these experiments are simplistic compared to the conditions under which many collective decisions are actually made in nature (or in our electoral system). Additionally, in this study, only two options were being considered. In real life, there are often multiple possibilities. In other words, it’s probably not realistic to predict or explain our upcoming elections with these results. But they're a good start to understanding the dynamics of collective decision-making.

99 Reader Comments

Let me translate most of the comments in here regarding the merits of various political systems:

Man, it would be great if we could implement a system where people I think should be in charge can be put in charge to do things I agree with and have more legitimacy - legitimacy meaning the appeal to authority (an ability to claim "the will of the people").

People are imperfect; no system can be perfect. The most perfect system is a system that ensures competition among the power structures, so that power can not be entirely consolidated.

Or we could just ban the theists from voting.

Yeah I agree that we should find a way to blanket ban the idiots from voting, it looking ''fair'' would be an added bonus but not essential.

Another thought on politics in the US: I would have no problem with all citizens having to take the equivalent of the US Citizenship Test in order to vote. I do not see why an understanding of the government is an unreasonable thing for voters to have. Given our educational system supposedly mandates teaching all students basic civics, and those seeking naturalization have to take the test, where is the discrimination?

Man, I'm going to hate myself for making this argument - largely because it shouldn't be this way, but it is what it is. Requiring any sort of civics test will disproportionately affect lower income and minority (as they tend to be on the lower end of the economic spectrum) groups due to the fact that the educational system in place has largely failed those demographics. Ergo, in theory a blanket test would apply to all equally, but in practice people in districts that are lower in socioeconomic status will be disproportionately affected because they will be more likely to fail the test.

It would be nice if every student in America could pass the test for naturalization (which my wife had to pass two months ago - finally) before graduation, but the likelihood of this coming to pass is proportional to the amount of teacher's unions bitching about it.

Valid point. I wish that our educational system was not in such shambles.

As some others have alluded, there is a difference between ignorance, willful ignorance and naivete. Those who lack understanding will exist in every democratic system, as we cannot know everything about every issue. But those who are willfully ignorant of facts, or who seek to loudly deny facts, are problematic. I would love to see research on that topic.

I would say our (US) electorate and politicians are primarily engaged in those last two actions much of the time, on most sides of the issues we are facing.

As some others have alluded, there is a difference between ignorance, willful ignorance and naivete. Those who lack understanding will exist in every democratic system, as we cannot know everything about every issue. But those who are willfully ignorant of facts, or who seek to loudly deny facts, are problematic.

Another couple of pluses for that one: +++

flashoverride wrote:

Grimmash wrote:

Another thought on politics in the US: I would have no problem with all citizens having to take the equivalent of the US Citizenship Test in order to vote...

Requiring any sort of civics test will disproportionately affect lower income and minority (as they tend to be on the lower end of the economic spectrum) groups due to the fact that the educational system in place has largely failed those demographics.

I understand your concern, but don't many immigrants to the US likewise come from the lower end of the economic spectrum? It can certainly be more of a hardship for anyone without ready access to education to demonstrate a certain level of proficiency, but it is certainly not impossible. Give people some credit - if they're motivated enough to demonstrate that they know how the government works, they should indeed be rewarded with a higher-weighted vote. As it is now, any dumbshit with US citizenship can offset a Nobel laureate simply by showing up at the polls and 'poking at the TV screen'.

-----

OT: It strikes me as a bit odd that we demand more from those who, by an accident of birth, happen to be outside our border looking in, than from those who, by a fortune of birth, happen to already be inside. I know that immigration is a flash-point these days, but if anyone cares to use the words 'justice' and 'equality' then it certainly isn't being applied towards those who's only fault is being at the end of the line when the gates closed. (Remember: everyone is ultimately an immigrant to what we call the Western Hemisphere. It's just a semantic argument regarding when they started the clock.)

I know that sounds harsh, but what we have now is a broken system. If someone isn't willing to put some effort into the task of governance, they should get out of the way. And it's not like anyone would be denied the right to demonstrate their proficiency; all they have to do is what any immigrant to the US has to do. Is that too much to ask?

Quote:

Quote:

Give people some credit - if they're motivated enough to demonstrate that they know how the government works, they should indeed be rewarded with a higher-weighted vote.

I trust you see where this slippery slope leads.

It's not a slippery slope. It's a three-foot intellectual barrier they have to overcome if they so choose.

And the award for research most likely to be misquoted, misunderstood and otherwise abused goes to...

Totally right... the fact is that you do NOT want ignorant people in a democracy. Yes, we cannot be totally well-read on every subject today (there are too many out there for any 100 year max lifetime human being to master and keep up with) but on some subjects you do want an educated populace.

In fact, the biggest problem in American and world society today is people who are uneducated, brainwashed with religion/'faith' (which denies reality), etc.

We need people to be more educated on certain subjects, especially about capitalism and the fact that without proper regulation and harsh regulation at that, it fails on numerous levels for necessities of life and allows price fixing/manipulation.

See, the problem with three foot intellectual barriers that you think stop the people you look down on, is that it's all too easy for someone else to erect a four foot barrier that you can't get over.

I know that the principle of a voter proficiency test comes with problems, but I don't think they are insurmountable.

When the US was started the fair thing to do was to grant every citizen one vote. That was in the 1700's, before the advent of universal public education, and when illiteracy was hardly the primary problem faced by the populace. But here we are, three hundred years later and children grow up with pocket-sized devices that access all of the world's knowledge and history. Every citizen is expected to either pass a test at immigration or to graduate from high school. It is no longer acceptable to allow people to live a life of neglect or ignorance.

And regarding those citizenship tests and high school exams, they are three foot intellectual hurdles. A person has to put some effort into passing them (or has to know how to cheat). And I will readily admit that a high school diploma does not necessarily prove that all holder's are intellectually capable, given the flaws of our education system. But they are tests nonetheless, warts and all, and people have to pass them to gain certain standing. Driving tests serve a similar purpose.

So why should the operation of our government offer such open-ended admission? To save words (false economy, on my part), I left off something from my original proposal; Everyone would get one vote, as always, but those who elect to do so can take a test and get their vote boosted in proportion to their results, up to double the weight of a vote.

If no one takes the test, it becomes one person, one vote (as we have now). However, if half the populace elects to take the test, and, for the sake of simplicity, they all score 100%, their votes count double. So those who take the initiative to 1) learn how their government works, and 2) actively test themselves on their proficiency get rewarded with up to 2x the vote. Lower test scores result in lower vote weights, all the way back to a single vote if they score 0%.

Note that I'm throwing this out as a point of discussion. It is by no means fixed in terms of implementation, and may contain fatal flaws that I haven't discovered yet. But the principle of improving our voting system and rewarding those with greater knowledge, is what I'd like to discuss.

(And this leaves out the separate issue that elected officials should absolutely get tested on their government proficiency before being allowed into office. I swear that some of them don't even know their way around the Constitution, nor most of the amendments.)

In 1990 in California, there was a set of ballot initiatives sponsored by a coalition of environmental groups, referred to as the 'Big Green initiative', and a competing set sponsored by industrial corporations. I was a college student at the time, and I had volunteered for an environmental advocacy group's voter mobilization effort on election day. My understanding was that the corporate-sponsored bills were intended to override the environmentalist-sponsored bills, if both passed, and the advertising was designed to confuse voters. I thought that it would be a good idea to read the actual text of the ballot measures in question.

People often point out that it's really difficult to assess a proposed law just by reading it. As I remember, the text of two opposing ballot measures mirrored each other, and I realized that the only way I knew which one was which was on the basis of what political factions were behind them, and what each claimed their respective ballot initiatives would do -- ultimately, I made my decision based upon whose judgment and integrity I trusted.

The sort of civics test I see people proposing here would be, at best, useless. Most civics tests I've ever seen have been trivia tests, and have little or nothing to do with the real issues at stake in politics.

dlux wrote:

When the US was started the fair thing to do was to grant every citizen one vote. That was in the 1700's, before the advent of universal public education, and when illiteracy was hardly the primary problem faced by the populace.

I believe I'm obligated to point out that in the US in the 1700s, only a minority had voting rights. Most states had a requirement to own a certain amount of property before one could vote, so it wasn't even the case that all white male citizens could vote. Some of the 'Founding Fathers' were concerned that universal suffrage would lead to laws for wealth redistribution. African-American men didn't have the legal right to vote until after the American Civil War -- and in practice, the right to vote was often denied to them for generations, with various legal subterfuges, such as the requirement to pass arbitrary tests before voting; this was a major issue in the Civil Rights Movement in the 1950s. Women didn't have the right to vote in the US until 1920. All-in-all, we haven't had universal suffrage for that long in the US and there are still threats to it.

Based on the title, does this mean that the GOP are promoting democracy by promoting ignorance?

Nowadays, yes.

---

What if, and I know this is a crazy question, but what if high schools were REQUIRED to teach the exact same citizenship test that immigrants have to take? AND what if you were not allowed to vote unless you had passed high school or the equivalent (which would mean you HAD TO take that particular course)? AAAAAND, what if, for those who graduated before the point we made this a requirement, there was some way they could take an immigration class/test or somesuch so they could then have the knowledge and be allowed to vote? (And, of course, we must give it a couple years so everyone has the chance to go to this class if they need it.)

The goal of this proposition is that, like the requirement to drive, to operate heavy machinery, to shoot a gun, etc etc, EVERYONE who wants to vote will have a certain basic level of education regarding civics and whatever else is critically important for them to know.

Two problems: 1) being "without a preference" and being "uninformed" are two COMPLETELY different groups, and it seems this study is conflating the two to be the same thing. I think youll find plenty, if not most "uninformed" people have EXTREMELY strong preferences and opinions. Ignorance is not the same thing as apathy. 2) People "without a preference" simply dont vote or participate in any form of sociopolitical activism. So they essentially do not exist in society, as far as influence is concerned. Theyre not an active factor in human politics or societal decision-making, so they cannot have any of the mitigating effects they are shown to have in this study.

I think what happens in reality is the large number of "uninformed" individuals does initially allow a very vocal minority to gain power, then once a solid vocal base is established, a wider array of uniformed individuals continues to gravitate and turn that vocal minority into a uninformed majority. The original message of the minority now no longer matters, and can change at a whim, but the group maintains cohesion through identity inertia and the continued manipulations of the core "informed" individuals.

I think an interesting study would be to take the same parameters as this one, but instead of introducting a non-preferential group, introduce an erratic, insane group that actively works against the society's best interests. Id like to see what effects that has.

What if, and I know this is a crazy question, but what if high schools were REQUIRED to teach the exact same citizenship test that immigrants have to take?

I think this is what high schools currently teach (or at least something close to it).

Quote:

AND ... AAAAAND ... (And, of course...)

The goal of this proposition is that, like the requirement to drive, to operate heavy machinery, to shoot a gun, etc etc, EVERYONE who wants to vote will have a certain basic level of education regarding civics and whatever else is critically important for them to know.

If you're about to shoot someone with a gun, your critical concerns are knowing how to identify the target, operate the gun, and hit the target instead of someone else. Lessons in civics can probably wait.

Quote:

Does this, in principle, do the job?

Is the job to govern the country well and fairly? We've already seen substantial evidence that extremely smart and well-educated people, the type who aces these and any other tests you care to throw at them, are perfectly capable of running our country and its economy into the ground. So I'd have to say no, even if it were a fair and equitable solution, testing for civic knowledge might not fix our problems.

Let me translate most of the comments in here regarding the merits of various political systems:

Man, it would be great if we could implement a system where people I think should be in charge can be put in charge to do things I agree with and have more legitimacy - legitimacy meaning the appeal to authority (an ability to claim "the will of the people").

People are imperfect; no system can be perfect. The most perfect system is a system that ensures competition among the power structures, so that power can not be entirely consolidated.

Or we could just ban the theists from voting.

Yeah I agree that we should find a way to blanket ban the idiots from voting, it looking ''fair'' would be an added bonus but not essential.

And people like you would riot when we take away your vote.

TBH, Id probably skip the riot part and go directly to the gun grabbing part. ;-)

The discussion of the connection between democracy and mob rule goes back to Aristotle, the corruption of democracy is mob rule. This idea is nothing new, I don't see what is so disappointing about it or why it would make someone so sad.

Aristotle also discusses governments of few people: aristocracy, government by the best people, or oligarchy its corresponding corruption. The U.S. falls somewhere in between these two and the former two. For those discussing disenfranchising based on civics test, you are effectively advocating for a mild form of what you perceive to be an aristocracy (as opposed to an oligarchy).

Finally, if states have a hard time enacting laws requiring a picture ID in order to vote based on claims of racism etc, then just imagine the reaction from a test requirement, given the history (that other posters have mention) of past voter requirements involving tests.

I think Democracy is the epitome of ignorance and you've only to witness the Congress to see what I mean/

The US Congress as it currently operates, is NOT an example of a Democracy nor even a Representative Republic (btw we are a Representative Republic and not a Democracy) but is more akin to a well-produced faux reality TV show where it appears that every action by all participants is real when in truth the general goal is planned if not some the individual pieces/acts performed by the participants. The current season of the US Congress is sponsored by the global elite; the same sponsors for all prior seasons productions of the US Congress.

“If politicians were shoes then Newt Gingrich would be a pair of clearance priced flip-flops consisting of 2 left feet with one mislabeled with an “R”.

Our form of republicanism is a type of representative democracy, which itself is a subset of democracy. I always wonder why this incorrect bullshit has so much traction. Is it just the "hah, I know something other people get wrong! I'm so smart!" effect, or something else?

These results are similar to what happens when people are given clickers in a lecture hall. Let's say a question is asked with five available responses (A-E), and there are three groups, a majority for A, a minority for B, and a group with no idea who is arbitrarily guessing between A through E. If the results are hidden during polling, the group with no idea spreads out over the five answers. But if the results are shown in real time as people buzz in, the unopionated will switch their votes to either A or B, and as a majority becomes apparent, switch their vote over to A. In the end, the majority receives more votes when results are shown in real time than if they were hidden during polling. There is no way to factor in strength of conviction in the lecture hall analogy though.

Kate Shaw Yoshida / Kate is a science writer for Ars Technica. She recently earned a dual Ph.D. in Zoology and Ecology, Evolutionary Biology and Behavior from Michigan State University, studying the social behavior of wild spotted hyenas.